91

MALAYSIAN EDUCATIONAL STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP PRACTICE INVENTORY (MESLPI): DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ITS

PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES

Hairuddin Mohd Ali, Ph.D 1

Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia

Inas Zulkipli, Ph.D 2

Institut Tadbiran Negara (INTAN)

Rosnani Kaman, Ph.D 3

Muhammad Bustaman Abdul Manaf 4

Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB)

hairuddin@iium.edu.my; inaszulkipli@gmail.com; rosnanikaman@iab.edu.my; mbustaman@iab.edu.my

ABSTRACT

The main purpose of the study is to test and validate the strategic leadership measuring instruments originally contributed by Davies and Davies (2010) and Pisapia et al. (2009). The second purpose is to compare the psychometric properties of both instruments based on reliability, validity and its responsiveness. The study employed a survey method. The combined instrument of Davies and Davies and Pisapia et al. was administered among the aspiring principals (NPQEL) through online. The study managed to collect 199 (out of 250 respondents) returned online survey questionnaires. The data was screened for errors and multivariate and univariate outliers prior to further analysis of the data. Descriptive Statistics and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) are employed for the testing the psychometric properties Davies and Davies and Pisapia et al. adapted instruments. The reliability estimates of both instruments are considered high from as low as 0.783 and as high as 0.896. The validity of the instruments is obviously demonstrated by the goodness of fit of the SEM models of Davies and Davies and Pisapia. The combination of both instruments led to the validity of Malaysian Educational Strategic Leadership Practice Inventory (MESLPI). Only a selected group of aspiring principals was used for this particular study. The other groups of the potential respondents did not take part in the study. The results from all three tests of psychometric properties of Davies and Davies, Pisapia et al. and the combination would contribute the indigenous body of knowledge in the area of strategic leadership in education in Malaysia. From the practical side, the valid MSLPI will be able to be used in profiling all aspiring principals for the benefit of high performance education sustainability in Malaysia. The result had considered fulfilled the novelty characteristics. Other than knowing which instrument is better in terms of psychometric properties, by combining and transforming both instruments into MESLPI is something very new in the context of Malaysian system of education. Keywords: Aspiring principals, structural equation modeling, psychometric, Malaysian

Educational Strategic Leadership Practice Inventory (MESLPI).

INTRODUCTION

Establishing a strategically focused schools (Davies & Davies, 2009), mobilizing

others to want to struggle for shared aspirations (Kouzes & Posner, 2003) and

focusing on effective schools (Everard, Morris & Wilson, 2004) are considered the

main aim of every strategic educational leaders. No matter who are the educational

leaders, whether they are incumbent principals or those are aspiring principals, the

92

most important task and responsibilities for them to handle will be to establish and

sustain the strategically focused and effective schools. The big question mark is that

whether the educational leaders concerned are fully ready with the challenges and

hindrances they may face in future endeavors.

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Although there are enormous studies conducted on educational leadership

(Leithwood, Jantza & Steinbach, 1999; Hallinger & Heck, 1996), but the scholars

admitted that in general, only a handful of study were conducted in the area of

educational strategic leadership worldwide as well as in Malaysia in particular. Just

to highlight a few, Davies (2004, 2006), Davies and Davies (2009), Pisapia et al.

(2009) are considered as the prominent scholars in this area of study. While Davies

and Davies (2009) are stressing on two aspects: Organizational capability (Strategic

Alignment, Strategic Translation, Strategic Competence, Strategic Orientation and

Strategic intervention) and Personal Characteristics (comprised of Restlessness,

Absorptive capacity, Adaptive capacity and Wisdom). Pisapia et al. (2009) are

stressing on Managing, Transforming, Bonding, Bridging, Bartering and Behavioral

Agility. Therefore, the main purpose of the study is to transform both contributions

into a newly defined area of study that will later contributes to the enhancement of

the educational strategic leadership skills and knowledge among the aspiring

principals and educational leaders for the sustainability of high performance

education.

The issue or problem that triggered this particular study is that, presently, there is

still no scientifically developed, valid and reliable Malaysian Educational Strategic

Leadership Inventory (MESLPI) that able to measure and functioning in profiling the

aspiring principals and aspiring educational leaders for the sustainability of high

performance education in Malaysia.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

As previously discussed, the study tries to transform the measuring instrument of

Davies and Davies (2009) and Pisapia et al. (2009) into a newly defined area of

study and profiling instruments. The study adopted and adapted all nine constructs

of Davies and Davies (2009) particularly the Strategic Alignment, Strategic

Translation, Strategic Competence, Strategic Orientation and Strategic intervention)

93

and Personal Characteristics (comprised of Restlessness, Absorptive capacity,

Adaptive capacity and Wisdom). At the same time, the study also tries to adopt and

adapt Pisapia et al. (2009) Managing, Transforming, Bonding, Bridging, Bartering

and Behavioral Agility. By combining and merging the contributions of those two

scholars hopefully the study will produce a scientifically new creation called

MESLPI. Figure 1 below depicts the conceptual framework of the study. Based on

the proposed conceptual framework, the objectives of the study are proposed in the

nest section of the paper.

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of the Study

OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS.

The detail objectives of the study are as follows:

1. To investigate the Validity of Malaysian Educational Strategic Leadership

Practice Inventory (MESLPI) construct.

2. To determine the Reliability of Malaysian Educational Strategic Leadership

Practice Inventory (MESLPI) construct.

3. To examine the Dimensionalities of the Malaysian Educational Strategic

Leadership Practice Inventory (MESLPI) construct.

4. To test if the MESLPI model is possessing the Goodness of fit

characteristics, valid and reliable.

While the detail research questions of the study are as follows:

1. Does MESLPI construct Valid?

2. Does MESLPI construct Reliable?

3. Does the MESLPI construct is exhibiting dimensionalities?

4. Does the MESLPI model is possessing the goodness of fit characteristics, valid

and reliable?

DAVIES & DAVIES

(2009)

MEASUREMENT

PISAPIA et al.

(2009)

MEASUREMENT

MALAYSIAN EDUCATIONAL

STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP

PRACTICE INVENTORY

(MESLPI)

94

Knowing About Educational Strategic Leadership (ESL)

Davies and Davies (2004, 2009) contributions

Research in the field of strategic leadership naturally progresses towards tabulating

strategic leader competencies. Starting from the 1980s, social science researchers

began to study leadership with more attention to the leadership of organizations

rather than conventional leadership attributes. Difference styles of leadership such

as transformational leadership, visionary leadership and charismatic leadership

terms emerge. Cheng (2000) defines "strategic leadership as determining where an

organization was heading and how to get there". The process includes strategic and

‘long-range’ planning. Boal and Hooijberg (2000) list three factors of a strategic

leader in their view relating to the essence of strategic leadership:

1. Creating and maintaining absorptive capacity (the ability to learn by

acknowledging new information, processing it and applying it).

2. Creating and maintaining adaptive capacity (the ability to change based on a

situation).

3. Obtaining managerial wisdom (consisting discernment and intuition).

Meanwhile, Weick (2001) states two attributes of strategic leaders and they are:

Improvisation (making something new or good from experience, practice and

knowledge) and lightness (the ability to drop anything that is no longer useful). Bolt

(1996) focuses more on the leader and less on the environment. According to him,

there are three dimensions of a leader: business, leadership, and personal

effectiveness. The business aspect focuses on executive development including

creating new forms of organizations, leading change and directing the organization.

Covey (1996) states that strategic leaders have three primary functions: path

finding, aligning and empowering. Path finding compromises the process of aligning

the organization’s value with the company's vision and mission. Aligning involves

the process of ensuring the organizational structure, systems and operational

procedures in-line with the organization's mission and vision. Furthermore,

empowering ignites the talent, ingenuity and creativity of the followers to accomplish

the mission. Quong and Walker (2010) emphasize seven principles a strategic

leader should have:

1. Future-oriented and have future strategy (Davies & Ellison, 2003)

2. Evidence-based and research led (Groundwater-Smith, 2000; Davies & Ellison

2003)

3. Get things done (Robinson, 2007; Elmore, 2002)

95

4. Open new horizons.

5. Fit to lead (Elmore, 2002)

6. Make good partners (Robinson, 2007)

7. Do the ‘next’ right thing (Ramsey, 2003)

As explained above, various scholars have provided multiple definitions and

strategic leadership characteristics. Some authors look at it from the individual

characteristics of a leader’s point of view and others define strategic elements in the

organization. Thus, for the purpose of this research, strategic leadership concept by

Davies (2006) and Davies and Davies (2004; 2009) are brought forward. Davies

(2006) and Davies and Davies (2004; 2009) combined five individual characteristics

and four organizational capabilities for a strategic leader. They highlight nine

characteristics of a strategic leader:

1. Restlessness - ‘creative tension’ which emerges from seeing clearly where one

wishes to be, one’s vision, and facing the truth about one’s current reality (Senge,

1990).

2. Absorptive - the ability to absorb new information, assimilate it and learn from it

and most importantly, apply it to new ends (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990).

3. Adaptive - the ability to change (Black & Boal, 1996; Hambrick, 1989).

4. Wisdom - the capacity to take the right action at the right time (Davies & Davies,

2004).

5. Strategic orientation – the ability to consider both long-term futures (Stacey, 1992;

Boisot, 1995; Beare, 2001; Adair, 2002), seeing the bigger picture, as well as

understanding the current contextual setting of the organization (Davies &

Davies, 2004).

6. Strategic translation – the need to translate strategy into action by converting it

into operational terms (Davies & Davies, 2004).

7. Strategic alignment - This ability of aligning individuals, or the school as a whole,

to a future organizational state or position (Gioia & Thomas, 1996; Gratton, 2000;

Davies, 2003).

8. Strategic intervention - the key moment for strategic change in organizations

(Burgleman & Grove, 1996).

9. Strategic competence - the ability to develop strategic capabilities (Prahalad &

Hamel, 1990).

Pisapia et al (2009) contributions

96

Pisapia et al. (2009) examined the employment of three tools developed to support

the all echelons brand of strategic leadership. The tools which build off the work of

earlier leadership scholars are the Strategic Thinking Questionnaire (STQ) and the

Strategic Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ), and the Strategic Leader Method (SLM).

The STQ measures use of three thinking skills: Reframing, Reflection, and Systems

Thinking (Pisapia, Reyes-Guerra, and Coukos-Semmel, 2004, Pisapia, Morris,

Toussaint, & Ellington, 2011). The SLQ measures five leader influence actions:

Transforming, Managing, Bonding, Ridging, and Bartering (Pisapia, 2009; Yasin,

2006). The SLM establishes a generative protocol that organizations and teams can

follow to create a Statement of Intent to guide the actions (Pisapia, 2009; Pisapia &

Robinson, 2010). The tools are currently being used for training purposes in

Graduate Education Programs such as the MBA Programs at University of

Charleston, USA; University of Ottawa, Canada; University of Turku, Finland; MED

programs for Aspiring School Leaders; Florida Atlantic University USA, and in

Corporate Training at Trust Bridge Health, USA; Noble Training, KSA; Discovery

Team, Poland; Peter Hess Associates, USA. The working hypothesis underlying the

all echelons brand of strategic leadership is that in times of complexity leaders who

are cognitively and behaviorally agile produce better results than those less

cognitively and behaviorally complex. This hypothesis or parts of it have been tested

in the Croatia, Hong Kong, India, Iran, Mainland China, Malaysia, Shanghai, Turkey,

and the USA. Only SLQ was considered in this study.

Malaysian Educational Strategic Leadership Practice Inventory (MESLPI)

To our knowledge, there are categories of measuring instruments and inventories

created and established by the scholars in educational leadership such as

Leadership Skills Inventory (LSI), Least Preferred Coworker (LPC), Leader-Member

Exchange (LMX-7) and Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), and

Leadership Practice Inventory (LPI) pioneered by Kouzes and Posner (2003).

Therefore, it was the main aim of this study to synthesize and transform Davies

(2006) and Davies and Davies (2009) and Pisapia et al. (2009) into a MESLPI which

might be more suitable with Malaysian context.

Research Design and Path of the Study

This study decided to employ full quantitative procedure (Creswell, 2009). The study

followed strictly the path proposed (Figure 2) in developing the MESLPI. The

research team members firstly carried out the critical review of the both current

educational strategic leadership measuring instrument (Davies & Davies, 2009;

97

Pisapia et al., 2009). The items of the respective measurement were put side by

side to investigate and scanning if there are redundancies and overlapping of items

and statements. The researchers needed to be very vigilant so that the principal

concepts are not left out during the process of merging.

Next was the merging process and the development of new educational strategic

leadership measuring instrument. It was the instrumentation processes where

principal component analysis (PCA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were

employed to examine the dimensionalities of the construct. The validity and

reliability of the items (and constructs) were examined through the indices as

exhibited by average variance extracted (AVE), composite reliability index (CRI),

Cronbach’s Alpha (α) and the loadings of items on the respective factors (.50 ≥).

Series of items testing were conducted before refinement and finalization

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

Fieldwork of administrating the newly developed educational strategic leadership

measuring instruments was the next phase. Due to certain limitations, the study

embarked on purposive sampling (Creswell, 2009) whereby the sample size of was

finally determined at 250 respondents with confidence interval of 95% and margin of

error ± 5-6% (Ferguson, 1981; Vockell & Asher, 1995) of aspiring principals who

were following an NPQEL course at Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB) sometime in the

month of August and September 2016. The survey questionnaire was administered

through on-line.

98

(1). Critical Review of the Current Educational Strategic Leadership Measuring Instrument

Comparing and refining the present instruments (Davies and Davies (2009) and Pisapia et al. (2009).

(2). Development of New Educational Strategic Leadership Measuring Instrument

Draft new instrument

Validation (construct validity & reliability)

Pilot test

Refinement and finalization.

Instrumentation

PCA & EFA

α, AVE, & CRI.

Loadings (.50 ≥)

(3) Administration of new educational strategic leadership measuring instrument

Fieldwork

Sampling procedure (purposive)

Sample size (250)

(4) Test of Dimensionality, Reliability and Validity

Run CFA (Check Goodness of Fit Indices: CMIN/DF, AGFI, GFI, CFI, TLI, & RMSEA)

α, AVE, & CRI.

Loadings (.50 ≥)

(5) Testing for Model-Fit

Goodness of Fit Indices: CMIN/DF, AGFI, GFI, CFI, TLI, & RMSEA)

Check loadings and path analysis.

Malaysian Educational Strategic Leadership Practice Inventory (MESLPI)

Figure 2: The Path of the Development of MESLPI

99

One of the stringent process of the study was the data collection process. Besides

the challenges of the truthfulness and sincerity of the respondents in responding to

the questionnaires, the study team members were very much aware of the

willingness and cooperativeness of every respondent in this particular study. Every

possible step that might motivate and pushed the respondents to take part in the

survey were employed. All the collected data needed to be “normalized” through

several steps of data screening prior to any further analyses. The CFA was carried

out to check the dimensionalities of the constructs. Examining the goodness of fit

indices such as CMIN/DF, AGFI, CFI, TLI and RMSEA (Hair et al., 2010) were

obviously pertinent. Besides that, the threshold values of α, AVE, CRI and

significant loadings were determined to justify the validity and reliability of the items

and constructs.

Finally, the study seek to test and examine if the SEM model of the study was fit and

therefore able to represent as the Malaysian Educational Strategic Leadership

Practice Inventory (MESLPI) Model. To justify this, the study needed to examine the

indices such as CMIN/DF, AGFI, GFI, CFI, TLI, and RMSEA (Hair et al. 2010). The

loadings of the items for every factors that measured the latent variables were also

examined.

DATA COLLECTION AND TREATMENT OF OUTLIERS

The survey questionnaires that were created by using Google Form were

administered for around 30 days (in between the months of August and September

2016). The targeted respondents were urged and persuaded from time to time to

login and participated in the survey. This multiple effort is considered pertinent to

ensure that the study had adequate number of respondents for SEM to be employed

(Hair et al., 2010). Successively, the study managed to collect 199 returned survey

questionnaires, however, three returned survey questionnaires were unusable. The

data was later stored in SPSS file for missing responses, univariate and multivariate

outliers’ treatment processes prior to further data analyses. The main purpose was

to ensure that the data gathered would be a normal data (Tabachnick & Fidell,

2007).

100

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Demographic information of the respondents

Table 1 exhibits the demographic profiles of the respondents. In terms of gender,

fascinatingly the percentage of female respondents is almost 15% larger than the

males, while in terms of age groups, almost 80% were from 45-59 years old age

group (45-49 years old =33.2%, 50-55 years old =39.8% & 55-59 years old = 7.7%).

Since the retiring age for the public servants is 60 years old, more than half of this

age group would be out of the system within ten years’ time.

In terms of academic qualifications, almost 82% were university graduates whereby

70.9% were holding at least a bachelor degree while around 11.2 % were holding a

master degree. As for the years of service item, majority of the respondents were

serving for almost 20-24 years (41.8%) and the years of service between 25-29

years (29.6%) were the second largest. However, there were 14.3% of the

respondents who served for more than 30 years. For further analyses of

demographic characteristics of the respondents, please refer to the lower part of

Table 1.

Table 1: Demographic Profiles of the Respondents

Variable n %

Gender

Male 84 42.9

Female 112 57.1

Age

30-34 years old 1 0.4

35-39 years old 10 5.1

40-44 years old 27 13.8

45-49 years old 65 33.2

50-54 years old 78 39.8

55-59 years old 15 7.7

Academic Qualification

Masters 22 11.2

Bachelor Degree 139 70.9

101

Variable n %

Diploma 27 13.8

Others 8 4.1

Years of Service

10-14 years 5 2.6

15-19 years 23 11.7

20-24 years 82 41.8

25-29 years 58 29.6

30-34 years 27 13.8

35-39 years 1 0.5

Current Leadership Position

GPK HEM 31 15.8

GPK Pentadbiran 100 51.0

GPK KO-KO 32 16.3

Guru Besar 4 2.0

Penyelia Petang 4 2.0

GPK Tingkatan 6 2 1.0

Pegawai PPD / JPN 22 11.5

Guru Akademik Tingkatan 6 1 0.5

Grade at Current Leadership Position

DG29 1 0.5

DGA32 8 4.1

DG32 34 17.3

DGA34 11 5.6

DG 34 35 17.9

DG 41 21 10.7

DG 42 5 2.6

DG 44 24 12.2

DG 48 54 27.6

DG 52 3 1.5

Years in Current Leadership Position

102

Variable n %

< 1 year 14 7.2

1-4 years 72 36.7

5-9 years 89 45.4

10-14 years 16 8.2

15-19 years 4 2.0

20-24 years - -

25-29 years 1 0.5

Note: N = 196 (minus 3 unusable returned survey questionnaires).

Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for MESLPI

This part in particular presented and discussed the results from the employment of

SEM analyses of the data. Pursuance to this, the study would address all four

research questions that this study would seek out. As far as the applicability of SEM

is concerned, this study specified the analysis to maximum likelihood with several

goodness of fit indices had being identified and used in this study. To confirm if all

research question are fully addressed, the multi-dimensional constructs of MESLPI

should at least possess any three goodness-of-fit indices (Hair et al., 2010;

Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) in order to provide adequate evidence of model fit.

Subsequently, each construct should indicate convergent validity (average variance

extract (AVE) ≥ .5 and composite reliability (CR) ≥ .7) of the specified SEM model of

MESLPI. After both conditions were fulfilled, only then, the study could concluded

that the re-specified SEM model was valid and reliable (Byrne, 2010).

CFA was used as a tool of analysis and confirmation of the factors and

dimensionalities of the MESLPI construct. The analysis and testing of the model

involved two steps of evaluation, i.e. identification and specification of the model,

and secondly, the re-specification of the model. To determine if the study had

addressed all research questions, the re-specified or final model needed to be

examined carefully.

103

A hypothesized model as exhibited by Figure 3 was developed, analyzed using CFA

and tested for its goodness of fit characteristics. Based on the present theory and

literature, Davies and Davies (2009) and Pisapia et al. (2009) had contributed nine

and six constructs respectively in this particular study. A total of nine constructs

/variables such as DSO, DST, DSA, DSI, DSC, DRE, DAB, DAD and Dw were from

Davies and Davies (2009) while the variables such as PM, PT, PBo, PBr, PBa and

PBe were from Pisapia et al. (2009). Based on the loadings of every sub-construct

or factors, it was revealed that all loadings were above .50 (threshold value)

whereby the lowest was PBr = .56 meanwhile Dab = .90 was the highest. As for the

goodness of fit indices, the hypothesized/specified model were seemed to be out of

the threshold values except CFI = .911 therefore the model could not be accepted

as it’s at present but rather needed to be improved through the re-specification

process (Hair et al. 2010).

Figure 3: Hypothesized and Generated SEM Model of MESLPI

MESLPI

104

The study then ensued to the next level of analysis, particularly the re-specification

of the MESLPI model. An examination of the modification index was inevitable and it

was confirmed that a few modification (as exhibited by the MI) needed to be carried

out on the specified MESLPI model by freeing the indicated errors. At least there

were eight occurrences where the study decided to free the errors such as e1-e2,

e1-e3, e2-e4, e10-e11, e12-e15, e12-e14, e13-e14 and e14-e15. This resulted in

the significant improvement and goodness of fit to the re-specified MESLPI model

as exhibited by Figure 4.

Ultimately, the revised model of MESLPI exhibited better goodness of fit values

(Chi-square = 168.063, df = 82, TLI = .960, CFI = .968, RMSEA = .076, CMIN/DF =

2.050). Only GFI and AGFI were slightly less than the threshold value of .90.

However, these were not of a concern as the other indices proved that the revised

model was fit to the data (Byrne, 2010).

Figure 4: Post Re-specification of model: Revised SEM Model of MESLPI.

Table 2 below would be used for detail comparisons between pre and post

specification of MESLPI model. It was very obvious that the post re-specification of

model was successfully revised the SEM model of MESLPI. This obviously proved

the dimensionalities of the MESLPI construct, and therefore Research Question 4

was successfully addressed in this study.

MESLPI

105

Table 2: Comparison of Goodness of Indices between the Hypothesized/Specified and Re-specified Models

Goodness of Fit Indices requirements

Threshold Values Hypothesized and Specified Model

Re-specified Model

Chi-square - 331.607 168.063

Degree of Freedom - 90 82

GFI ≥ .90 .747 .883

AGFI ≥ .90 .663 .829

TLI ≥ .90 .897 .960

CFI ≥ .90 .911 .968

RMSEA ≤ .08 .121 .076

CMIN/DF ≤ 4 3.685 2.05

P-Values - .000 .000

The examination of the validity and reliability of the MESLPI construct were

discussed next based on Table 3 (Determination of Validity and Reliability of the

MESLPI Construct) below. Three columns particularly Internal Reliability (Cronbach

Alpha), Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Composite Reliability Index (CRI)

were examined in the effort of addressing the Research Question 1 and 2.

Validity means the extent to which the theory is in line with the interpretation of test

scores for an intended purpose (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh, 2005). Therefore, in this

particular context, as the value of AVE was .6587 (threshold of .5) and CRI was

equal to .9369 (threshold value of .7), convergent validity and reliability were

achieved. Therefore, it could be concluded that Research Question 1 and 2 were

successfully addressed.

Finally, the study attempted to address the Research Question 5: Does the MESLPI

model is valid and reliable and therefore could represent as the model of the study?

To address this research question, please refer to the results as in Figure 4 and

Table 3. By referring to Figure 4 and Table 2, almost all goodness of fit indices were

remarkably high passing the threshold or cut-off values. Consequently, the previous

results were supported by the results as depicted in Table 3 below. The internal

consistency or Cronbach Alphas of the construct were remarkably high (more than

.7), the AVE (.6587) and CRI (.9369) were both passing their threshold values of .50

and .70 respectively (Hair et al., 2010). The factor loadings for every construct was

106

also exhibited very high (.55 to .90). These proved that MESLPI construct was valid

and reliable. By reckoning all the discussed results, therefore the study concluded

that MESLPI model is valid and reliable and therefore could represent as the model

of the study.

Table 3: Determination of Validity and Reliability of the MESLPI Construct

Construct Sub-Constructs No of Items

Internal Reliability (Cronbach Alpha)

Factor Loading

AVE CRI

MESLPI

Str. Orientation 5 .795 .76

Str. Translation 5 .826 .82

Str. Alignment 5 .903 .80

Str. Intervention 4 .789 .83

Str. Competencies 5 .824 .88

Restlessness 5 .803 .88

Absorptive 5 .783 .87

Adaptive 5 .826 .90

Wisdom 8 .849 .87 .6587 .9369

Managing 9 .896 .81

Transforming 6 .882 .85

Bonding 6 .856 .78

Bridging 6 .850 .55

Bartering 7 .834 .75

Behavioural Agility 9 .813 .76

Implications and conclusions

The implications might be highlighted from two aspects particularly from the

theoretical and practical aspects. Theoretically, this study attempted to merge and

107

harmonize the two prominent theories (Davies & Davies, 2009; Pisapia et al. 2009)

and transform it into a new concept and theory for future endeavors. It is hoped that

this newly developed MESLPI will enable to offer more opportunities for researchers

to carry out their studies and hence will enrich the indigenous body of knowledge

and the literature concerned.

Another implications is related to the usage and application of the newly developed

MESLPI in preparing the aspiring principals and aspiring educational leaders for

high performance and sustainability education. Does this particular new measuring

tool is effective enough and be able to attract the policy and decision makers to

employ the MESLPI? Does this newly developed tools will finally facing similar fate

together with thousands of unnoticed research findings? Or does this newly

developed MESLPI is able in mobilizing others to struggle for shared aspirations

and vision? (Kouzes & Posner, 2003).

108

REFERENCES

Adair, J. (2002). Effective strategic leadership. London: Macmillan.

Ary, D.; Jacobs, L. C. & Razavich, A. (2005). Introduction to research in education (7th edn.) (241—274). Wadsworth Thomson Leaving.

Beare, H. (2001). Creating the future school. London, Routledge Falmer.

Boisot, M. (1995). Preparing for turbulence, In B. Garratt (Ed.) Developing strategic thought (London, McGraw-Hill).

Bolt, J. F. (1996). Developing three-dimensional leaders. In Leader of the future, In Frances Hesselbein, Marshall Goldsmith, and Richard Beckhard, (eds.). 161174. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Boal, K. B., & Hooijberg, R. (2000). Strategic leadership research: Moving on. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 515-549.

Burgleman R. A, & Grove, A. S. (1996). Strategic dissonance. California Management Review, 38(2), 8–28.

Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, (2nd edn.). New York: Routledge.

Cheng, Y. C. (2000). Educational Reforms in the New Century: Multiple intelligence and globalization, localization and individualization. In the Chinese educational research association (ed.), New Vision of Educational Development in the New Century (pp. 1-41).

Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152

Covey, S. R. (1996). Three roles of the leader in the new paradigm, In Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M. and Beckhard, R., (eds.). The Leader of the Future: New Visions, Strategies, and Practices for the Next Era, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 149-59.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. (3rd Edn.) Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Davies, B. & Ellison, L. (2003). The new strategic direction and development of the School: Key frameworks for school improvement planning. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Davies, B. and Davies, B. J. (2004). Strategic leadership. School Leadership and Management, 24 (1), 29-38.

Davies, B. and Davies, B. J. (2009). Strategic leadership, In Davies, B. (Ed.), The Essentials of School Leadership, (2nd edn.), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 13-35.

Davies, B. (2006). Leading the strategically focused school: Success and sustainability. CA: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.

Davies, B. (2003). Rethinking strategy and strategic leadership in schools, Education Management & Administration, 31, 295–312

Elmore, R. F. (2002). Unwarranted intrusion. Education Next, 2(1), 30–35.

Evevard, K.B., Morris, G. & Wilson, I. (2004). Effective school management. London: Sage Publications.

Ferguson, G.A. (1981). Statistical Analysis in PhD Education, (5th edn.), New York: McGraw Hill

109

Gioia, D. A. & Thomas, J. G. (1996). Identity, image, and issue interpretation: sense making during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 370–403

Gratton, L. (2000). Living strategy: putting people at the heart of corporate purpose. London: Financial Times–Prentice Hall.

Groundwater-Smith, S. (2000). Evidence Based Practice – Towards Whole School Improvement. Paper Presented to the Annual Conference Australian Association for Research in Education Sydney, 4-7 December 2000.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principalʹs role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1),

5‐44.

Hambrick, D. C. (1989). Guest editor’s introduction: putting top managers back in the strategy picture. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 5-15.

Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (2003). The Leadership Challenge. NY: Jossey-Bass.

Leithwood, K. A., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Pisapia, J. R. & Ying, L. (2011). Values and actions: An exploratory study of school principals in the mainland of China. Front Education China, 6(3), 361-387.

Pisapia, J., Pang, N. S. K., Hee, T. H. & Morris, J. D. (2009). A comparison of the use of strategic thinking skills of aspiring school leaders in Hong Kong, Malaysia, Shanghai, and the United States: An exploratory study. International Journal of Educational Studies, 2(2), 48-58.

Pisapia, J., Coukos-Semmel, E., and Reyes-Guerra, D. (2004). Assessing the Cognitive Processes of Leaders: Do Effective Leaders Think Differently than Less Effective Leaders? In A. Lazaridou (Ed.), Contemporary Issues on Educational Administration and Policy (Chapter 9, pp 147-170). Athens, Greece: Athens Institute for Education and Research. ISBN: 960-88331-2-4.

Pisapia, J., Morris, J., Cavanaugh, G., & Ellington, L. (2011). The Strategic Thinking Questionnaire: Validation and Confirmation of Constructs. Presented at The 31

st SMS

Annual International Conference, Miami, Florida November 6-9, 2011.

Pisapia, J. (2009). The Difference makers: Strategic thinking and strategic execution. Paper

presented at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, July 7, 2009. (Invited)

Pisapia, J., Reyes-Guerra, D. & Yasin, M. (2006) Strategic Thinking and Leader Success Presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Conference on Advances in Management, Lisbon Portugal, July 19-22, 2006.

Pisapia, J. & Robinson, D. (2010). Transforming the academy: Strategic thinking vs strategic planning. Paper presented to the 4th conference of the American Institute of Higher

Education. Williamsburg, Va. USA. March 18, 2010.

Prahalad, C. K. & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79-87.

Quong, T. & Walker, A. (2010). Seven Principles of Strategic Leadership. International Studies and Education Administration (ISEA), 38(1).

Ramsey, R. (2003). From A–Z: Practical Lessons from Successful Schools and Businesses. Thousand Oaks: CA: Corwin Press.

Robinson, V. (2007). How School Leaders Make a Difference to their Students. Keynote address to International Confederation of Principals: a paper presented to the 2007 International Confederation of Principals, Auckland, 2 April 2007.

110

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.

Stacey, R. D. (1992). Managing the unknowable: strategic boundaries between order and chaos in organisations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th edn.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Vockell, E .L. & Asher, J.W. (1995). Educational research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Weick, K. E. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Oxford: Blackwell.